Building Safety Remediation Bill: What property developers need to know

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has introduced the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (the “Bill”) to Parliament. For property developers, particularly those operating through group or SPV structures, the Bill has the potential to change materially both who is accountable for unsafe buildings and how that accountability is enforced.

In short, the Bill aims to accelerate the remediation of unsafe cladding and to close perceived gaps in the regime established by the Building Safety Act 2022, supported by stronger enforcement powers and more significant penalties for inaction. Most significantly, it marks a shift away from a framework based largely on remediation orders and cost-recovery mechanisms, towards one that imposes direct statutory duties backed by civil and criminal enforcement. Put simply, remediation will no longer be something that happens only once a Tribunal or Regulator intervenes; it will be a standing legal obligation.

The Bill largely gives legislative effect to measures previously set out in the Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan and its July 2025 update. At its heart is a new legal duty on those responsible for buildings with unsafe cladding to identify, assess and remediate fire safety risks.

The principal measures in the Bill include:

• A legal duty to remediate: a new legal duty requiring those with the relevant repairing obligation for a residential building over 11 metres (the “responsible entity”) to remediate unsafe cladding.
• Stronger enforcement: enhanced enforcement powers where responsible entities, such as freeholders, fail to progress remediation.
• Assessment and transparency: a register of residential buildings between 11 and 18 metres, a more consistent approach to Fire Risk Appraisals of External Walls (FRAEWs), and a requirement for responsible entities to assess their buildings for fire safety risks within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
• A remediation backstop: powers for public authorities to intervene by way of remediation management orders where remediation is not being progressed and the ability for those authorities to recover the associated costs from the responsible entity.
• Manufacturer liability: strengthened routes for recovering remediation costs from construction product manufacturers.
• Regulatory co-operation: new provisions intended to improve co-operation between regulators.

The Bill also proposes amendments to other residential legislation, giving leaseholders clearer legal routes to take control of the management of a building where the premises have become effectively ownerless, so that essential maintenance and safety works can continue.

In addition, the Bill would make clear that no limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 applies to Remediation Orders, Remediation Contribution Orders or Building Liability Orders. For developers, this removes any argument that the passage of time offers protection against these applications: historic projects may continue to give rise to exposure indefinitely.

Group accountability: piercing the corporate veil further?

For the purposes of the duty to remediate, the responsible entity is the person with the relevant repairing obligation for the building. In practice, that will often be a single company within a wider corporate group, such as a subsidiary or special purpose vehicle ("SPV"). In such structures, the company with formal responsibility for the building may have limited assets, while the financial resources and decision-making authority sit elsewhere in the group.

The Government’s concern is that those who ultimately control and benefit from a building could avoid the consequences of failing to comply with the duty to remediate. Where an SPV holds the freehold or repairing obligation but is thinly capitalised, enforcement action against it alone may achieve little.

The Bill responds with group accountability provisions which, in the Government’s words, are intended to ensure that “enforcement action reflects the economic reality of corporate structures,” so that those exercising real control over a building cannot avoid responsibility through complex ownership arrangements. In relation to certain offences, a regulator would be able to serve a penalty notice on both the corporate responsible entity and any company that controls it. This builds on the direction of travel already set by Remediation Contribution Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022, and parent and group companies should not assume that ring-fencing a project within an SPV will insulate them from enforcement.

What this means for developers in practice

Developers, particularly those that retain freehold interests or repairing obligations in residential buildings over 11 metres, should consider the following:

• Identify your exposure: map which entities in your group hold freehold interests or repairing obligations in relevant buildings, and which of them would be a responsible entity under the Bill.
• Prepare for the assessment deadline: the 12-month window for assessing buildings will run from Royal Assent, so it is sensible to begin scoping FRAEWs and engaging suitably qualified assessors now.
• Review group structures and governance: with controlling companies potentially exposed to penalty notices, boards should understand where remediation risk sits across the group and ensure appropriate oversight of remediation programmes.
• Revisit historic projects: with no limitation period applying to key orders, legacy schemes should be reviewed and provided for appropriately, including in transactional due diligence and disclosure.
• Consider recovery opportunities: the strengthened routes against construction product manufacturers may assist in recovering remediation costs, so review the available evidence and supply chain contracts, warranties and insurance. 

Next steps

The Bill is still progressing through Parliament, and further regulations and guidance are expected, so the detail may change. Its direction, however, is clear: responsibility for remediation is moving from the reactive to the proactive, and from the individual building owner to the wider group that controls it. Developers that act now to understand their portfolio, structures and potential liabilities will be best placed to manage the risk and avoid enforcement. If you would like to discuss how the Bill may affect your business or specific projects, please get in touch with your usual Burges Salmon contact.